Report: Mitt to give major speech on Mormonism on Thursday
posted at 4:42 pm on December 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
So says Mark Halperin, citing a Romney advisor. Two other Romney advisors told Beliefnet earlier this week that any speech on the subject would be delayed until next year because, after all, if it ain’t broke why fix it?
“A lot of people were talking about doing it before Thanksgiving and the holidays, but then we moved up in the polls, including in South Carolina,” a senior Romney advisor tells Beliefnet. “So the thinking became that the timing [for a speech on religion] was not as rushed.”
Well, now it’s broke. So they’re going to try to fix it.
Halperin breaks it down here. Exit question: Can Mitt get away with a generalized JFK-esque “it just doesn’t matter” speech? I’m guessing … no.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
NO. Christian socialist, Mormon socialist, Ted Kennedy socialist- it doesn’t matter.
Valiant on December 3, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Troy,
You can’t just ignore it if it could have a barring on how he would lead the country if elected. That would be foolish and not the role of a informed citizenry in a democratic republic.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 AM
No, if you were a religious leader, you can’t be a political leader…the two are opposing factions. That’s the point, if you were an “honest” minister they would acknowledge that. The two come in conflict so often, you would have to continuously negotiate your principles. That is why I quoted the passage from Matthew, you can’t serve these two masters. Think, sending someone off to war, or turning someone away (immigrants) can create huge conflicts (or not feeding the hungry). Just look at the way Mitt handled Bechtel, a Mormon run company, with the owners heavily supporting Mitt. In the Big Dig, he let them off the hook, even gave them bonuses for the largest boon-doggle in history. Even to the point where someone was killed, and he fired a bureaucratic, and did not punish Bechtel. It is too hard to punish someone of your own faith, let alone a campaign supporter.
It is not a good idea to have a faithful idealist as a leader. Sometimes (seldom) it works, and sometimes (Carter, very religious) it doesn’t. And when you add into the formula, a person who follows a “living prophet”, or is working to be a God, it just doesn’t make sense. Or a person (Huck) who panders to the religious right, it doesn’t ring true. Is there any greater repulsion than using God to obtain a political seat? “Vote for me and you will be blessed”, yeah that is exactly what I want to hear.
Mitt a great guy with a great family, and I am sure Huck is the same. Both with strong values, both with hardly a blemish, but God does not alway choose the unblemished to lead. Nor does he always choose the most faithful to lead. In fact, the gratest are more often the least, and the least the greatest.
Look at Churchill. You don’t need to be a messenger of God to lead a political movement and save the world.
right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 12:04 PM
So, right2bright: as usual, you are explicitly saying that the LDS doctrines make a man unfit for political office. It’s fine to admit that you are anti-mormon.
1st) You are offended by the “professors of Christianity” quote. May I remind you that Joseph Smith and his followers were driven from state to state, tarred, feathered, murdered, etc.–all from hysterics whipped up by so called “Professors of Christianity.” Take a look at early LDS church history and you’ll find the most persecuted religion in US history–by far. Joseph Smith was speaking from experience. And you cannot dispute it (unless you want to argue that LDS people deserve the kind of treatment they received in the 1800’s). Many ministers back then (and I wager several NOW) are wolves in sheep clothing–just as the New Testament predicts, btw.
2nd) Ah, yes–living prophets. I’m sorry that you have issues with the concepts of a prophet–you clearly couldn’t have lived in biblical times, when God DID speak to man via prophets. Unlike, say, you, I personally look at the world and think that if we ever needed words from God, it is now.
Oh, and btw–No man is perfect. And you insist that LDS prophets must be perfect, or else they are fallen. Well, toss out Jonah, Moses, Peter, Paul, Adam, and I’m sure every OTHER prophet or apostle of the Old and New Testaments, because they all explicitly did wrong (jacob lied, etc). Let’s see you criticize them before you go all holier than thou about LDS people believing that God cares enough about us to talk to us (instead of your apparent belief that God cannot speak anymore). Of course, you are terrified of a 97 year old man, too (President Hinckley). Brave, man. Real brave.
3rd) Polygamy. No one knows if Jesus was polygamist–it is not doctrine at all about Christ’s marital status. Nor does it matter, except to people like you looking to bash the LDS Church. But while you are at it, toss out Abraham, Issac, and Jacob from your worship. They were polygamists. Which means you don’t believe in the Abrahamic covenant, or the House of Israel (founded by a Polygamist). You cannot attack us for a practice long since ceased without being consistent and removing the book of Genesis from your Bible and belief system too. So I expect to hear you renouncing Genesis in your next post, or else to be shutting up about Polygamy. Besides, isn’t it a bit ironic that Mitt the Mormon has a much better family life than the majority of the other candidates? (the horrors! LDS teachings could *GASP* lead someone to do good!)
4th) Belief in becoming like our Heavenly Father, or theosis. Perhaps it is a shock to you, but this doctrine is thoroughly biblical, well attested to both in scripture and in the Early Church Fathers writings (Origen, Clement, Anathasis, and even C.S. Lewis). What else is an “heir of God, and joint-heir of Christ?” Rom. 8:14-18. Or when Peter says we are to be partakers of the divine nature? 2 Pet. 1:3-10. Or, as John says in 1 John 3:2, when God appears we shall be like him?
I’m sorry that the LDS church holding Biblical doctrines is so frightening to you.
And then you claim we are playing the “victim” card. Tell you what: when YOUR religion has a history of being persecuted, then a continuing history of ministers spending time, efforts, money, and dedicating their life to tearing down Lutheranism, you might see why we say that. How many anti-Lutheran sites are there on the internet? How many anti-Mormon? How many “experts” on Lutheran’s are there going around pretending to teach what Lutherans “really believe” like you do about MY faith? LDS attack Christianity? We do not attack Christianity at all. Not real Christianity, or people who want to be humble followers of Christ. But then, Humble followers of Christ don’t think it is their sacred duty to bash the LDS faith, since it’s not what Jesus would do.
Replying to your quotes is pointless, Right2bright. You cherry pick quotes that you’ve found from your Anti-mormon website or literature, and no matter what I or anyone else does to explain, clarify, or refute your statements and assumptions, you still keep bringing up more and more points of doctrine that have little to no relevance to a political debate. Why debate with you? I cannot make you see sense. I cannot force you to realize how unChristian you are acting. I will never be able to “explain” things to your understanding–you just move on to some other thing you have invented or found to bash us with. So what use is it for me to engage in debate with you? You have a warped view of LDS doctrine that doesn’t represent reality, and you refuse to hear corrections. You are a LDS “troofer”, and it’s about as pointless to answer your stuff as it is to deal with a 9-11 truther.
I am at last glad to see you fully admit it, though. Your last quote explicitly puts forth your view that a faithful LDS person is ineligible for office holding (why else the “But we will see if he distances himself from Salt Lake City. Does he want to lead a nation, or become a God? You can’t serve to masters.”– That quote identifies your anti-mormonism in full) . So you are imposing a religious test, just as the Constitution forbids.
Good for you. Rejoice in your bigotry. And try not to pretend you aren’t one–you fully admit you believe LDS doctrine disqualifies a man from officeholding in the United States of America. If that’s not bigotry, I’m not sure what could be.
Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Not for Muslems they aren’t.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 12:17 PM
All depends on if you want a bishop as a president or not I guess.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I’m not a Romney fan as yet. I prefer Giuliani; he gives me some hope in the area of fiscal restraint. What can I say? I’m shallow.
But this story from Confessions of a political junkie does make Romney seem like a pretty solid person.
Jens on December 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM
bnelson44: Mitt’s not a bishop. I don’t know what his current calling if any is in the church, but unlike most denominations, it’s not “once a bishop always a bishop.” He’s not in charge of any congregation that I know of right now.
The LDS church has a lay ministry until you get to the very highest levels (the “General authorities”) and Mitt is not a General Authority. As far as I know, he’s been released from any position of authority over a congregation. My grandfather was a bishop at one point (for 5 years), yet he’s very common and down to earth. There’s no school you go to, no degree involved. So it’s not like a standard minister by any stretch of the imagination. Mitt’s no trained theologian, as I am not (and indeed, very few LDS members are).
Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM
That’s a great story, Jens. I’d like to hear more about it, as the comments seem to suggest a few of the details have morphed (i.e. Secret Service people, etc).
Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 12:34 PM
True, but he was not only a bishop but a stake president (which is more like a Christian bishop). They may not be LDS permanent positions, but still it is what it is. That it is the fault of the LDS structure and doctrine doesn’t take away from that.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Some of the Mormon history and beliefs are pretty far out there. Their racial record is spotty at best, not to mention other “extreme doctrine” that is kind of creepy to many people.
However, the Mormons turn out some of the best and smartest clean cut people in the United states. They seem to focus on very positive personal values, in spite of some conflicting LDS dogma. The reality is his Mormon faith may be a strength, not a weakness.
saiga on December 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I knew you would come in with the “victim” card. I did not say explicitly the LDS, notice I also said Huck, or any other religious leader. At least be accurate. You started off with lies.
Now I will read the rest of your post. Although the foundation is a lie.
right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 1:06 PM
All religions are pretty far out there.
Theirs do not seem to have caused any corruption to the “souls” of LDS members.
Can’t exactly say that for all other religions.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I am not a Morman. I have lived in the SW all my life and have known many many Mormans. I admire their religion for many things.
Yes, there are things about the Mormans I don’t agree with, the same as with many other religions.
I am sometimes asked, how can you believe in God and not belong to a church. Well, looking over the organized churches of today, the question need not be asked…………
navy1946 on December 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/paperschapter.php?chapid=62
jp on December 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Thanks for the great link above, which led me to this very interesting and informative blog, which led me this VERY interesting quote:
Divine providence, my a$$. No, thank you.
Maybe a conservative like Duncan Hunter, uninvolved in religious dart-throwing contests, can be heard above all the sectarian noise.
If “Christians” keep debating theology while galloping sharia advances, woe is us. 1685 will not turn out nearly as well as it did last time.
fred5678 on December 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM
1683 – sorry. I’m sure all are familiar with Gates of Vienna.
fred5678 on December 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Interesting, you say I cherry pick. You mean from your D & C? If they don’t mean what they say, then have them removed. (I remember my first challenge to you, I asked if Mormons were Poly or Mono theists…you never answered, but you wrote a lot of words. The answer is Poly, you believe in many Gods…why not just say it.)
1st…well the Jews would have an argument about Mormons being the most abused. Maybe the stealing of Christian beliefs, then using them as their own has something to do with it. Like I said (and you dodge it), saying Jesus was married, let alone a polygamist, is abhorrent to Christians (of course that would mean he is not the trinity), yet you have no problem with that. Who is the bigot?
2nd.I have stated Duet. several times, when speaking the word of God he must be 100% correct. Get it, not 100% in his life, but when speaking the word of God. Do each of your prophets stand up to that…or do you want to say “We don’t believe what the bible says, the book of mormon says different”? As far as Jesus bashing false teachings and teachers, all the time my friend, he gave no quarter to false teaching.
3rd: Well at least you admit that polygamy is right. You see no difference in the New and Old Testament. And you see no diff in what your church (in mid 1800’s, not 2,000BC), But your church has denounced it, yet it is still in your D & C, tough to explain that.
How many anti-Christian sites?…3,960,000… and only 25,300 anti-mormon sites.
You don’t want to know what the real Greek meanings of those passages.
2 Pet. 1:3-10…better reread that one.
If you truly believe that you are Christian, then read the dozens of contemporary commentaries. These are brilliant men, each with a different point of view, but each from the historical contexts from the original Greek and Hebrew. And like you, all Christians. Or stick with a Mormon slant. Just google commentaries, or start here:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html
I am sure, with all of your study, you have heard of Matthew Henry.
Most of your other points is to bash, funny, I quote, you bash.
And you end as usual, in a name calling spree.
I do not think being LDS disqualifies (another one of your lies), I point out that being a minister does though…something you seem to overlook. What I state is someone that is extremely religious has to prove who his master is.
You don’t understand that calling Jesus a polygamist is shameful, that twisting the bible is abhorrent to Christians, that taking the Gospel of Jhhn 1-18, and twisting it is worse than taking a 14 year old girl for a wife. (read and review the texts you state, use the internet to honestly investigate your texts, and you will be saddened by the truth, but strengthened).
You are set off by me saying I do not think a person can serve to masters. For some reason those biblical words upset you, sorry, it was meant for political and business leaders.
Then Jesus was anti-Mormon? Those weren’t my words.
When you can defend your faith without name calling and reverting to the word bigot, you will hold much more authority. When you can quote texts, and back them up with mainstream theology, using the original texts of Greek and Hebrew, and not some nuggets from a hat (your only authority), then you will have more authority.
There is a reason not one noted Jewish scholar has ever accepted the Mormons interpretation of the bible, the reason why National Geographic (or any other renowned society) has never found any ancient Mormon civilization (or remnants, coins, language, etc.), and why no Christian religions accepted your living prophets.
Turn your anger away from me, and look again…open your eyes and look again, look, study, research…that is what the internet is for.
And God will bless you…he has laid it out for you. Maybe this is a trigger.
right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I time the questioning.
corona on December 3, 2007 at 2:52 PM
The same exact conversation in yet another thread.
The point many of you are missing is that whether people are justified in voting (or not) based on Mitt’s religion is irrelevant. What matters is the political reality.
Argue the morality and theology all you want, but could we stick with a little reality when it comes to the politics? Mitt’s Mormonism will have a significant impact, for better or worse. His speech will have an impact. Simple fact. Most primary voters are going to be traditional Christians. Again, simple fact.
If you support Mitt, find a way to deal with that reality. The bickering and name-calling and “well, what about them crazy Catholics” stuff ain’t gonna help you.
I’ll give you a hint: denying the reality of the primary voting situation or, worse yet, calling those with obvious questions “bigots,” is not going to help your political situation.
Enough with the quotes from Holy Books of various flavors. Mitt is, in fact, a qualified candidate. Figure out how to get him elected.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I appreciate that you want to help me. Believe me, I much prefer kind intent to ill. But you do yourself a disservice in your kind intention when you state things that may be technically true, but not actually true about the beliefs of those whom you target for loving correction.
For example, while it is technically true, given the simple definition of monotheist (the belief that there is only one god) that latter day saints are not strictly monotheist; it is not really true in that no latter day saint knows of any but one god, God the Father, and it is only to that one God that latter day saints pray and it is only that one God that latter day saints worship.
Now, I can see a lot of “ifs” “ands” and “buts” that my example may elicit from you and some helpful others, including the obligatory mention of the speeches remembered in text in the Journal of Discourses. Please consider this before you reply: when you say I believe things that are not what I believe, though perhaps technically true, you only serve to make yourself seem ill-informed. Since you being ill-informed is likely not true, I hope that I’ve helped you know how to seem otherwise.
Jens on December 3, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Right2bright: You set up conditions impossible to fulfill. I have said numerous times that the LDS church is not traditional Christianity, which I define as Nicean Christianity.
And I still stand by my statement–the LDS church is the most persecuted religion in the history of the United States–more than Jews. Not worldwide, mind you, but in the US. And that persecution was by your “professors of Christianity.”
I’m reminded here of Lucifer tempting Christ with the scriptures–he also cherrypicked from the Scriptures to try to confuse Christ.
Why do you harp so much on Christ’s marriage? WE DON’T KNOW if Christ was married. It’s not important. I don’t know why you care so much–is there something hideous that happens if Christ was married? He was, after all, a man (along with being divine) so Him being married shouldn’t matter, right? Men marry, after all. How would Christ being married suddenly make Him not a member of the Trinity? Sheesh–you are hyperventilating over nonsense here.
And let me ask you: Does doctrine ever change? I seem to recall the entire Mosaic law changing. Did all of Deuteronomy suddenly become a lie because Christ came and changed the law? Yet Moses was a prophet. And did every word said by Moses become scripture? And what about Jonah–his prophecies against Ninevah proved false, did they not?
No, I don’t see the LDS church differently than the Old Testament or New Testament–after all, that is when the Lord’s church was organized. We are heirs to that time, and it is like living in those times. I’m not sure why you think that God would deal with His children today than His children back then, but apparently you do. I note you didn’t reject Genesis, so you again have no room to bash us for a practice that has ceased long ago. The LDS church has not denounced it anymore than we denounce Abraham. Where’s your church’s denunciation of Abraham because he practiced polygamy? Show me that and then you won’t be a hypocrite for demanding the LDS church do something your church and you refuse to do.
Tell me, since you revere commentaries so much–how would you know if they are wrong? Besides, more and more commentaries are siding with the LDS church–theosis was a significant part of the early church. Too bad Protestants have abandoned that doctrine for the most part.
As to your “no man can serve two masters” bit: Mitt Romney is not a minister at the current time, to the best of my knowledge. Yet you still maintain he is not qualified, because he served as a congregational leader. That effectively eliminates all LDS people, doesn’t it? I myself have served in some presidencies in my local church unit, and I teach Sunday School. Under your definitions, I’m now precluded from any office holding. So why not rail on Huckabee? You make token moves in that direction, but you’d rather flog your interpretation of Greek as somehow authoritative reasons why LDS people are ineligible to hold political office.
It’s simple: You are the kind of person who will drive out everyone who disagree’s with you. I’m sure you’d be tickled pink, right2bright, if all the Mormons in America left the republican party, right?
As for your “no one has accepted your views!” statement: I seem to recall that the same can be said of the early Christians too. Didn’t Jesus say that the world would fight against the truth? Yet again the Savior is proven correct.
Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Thanks, what I base my monothieism on is the biblical word that the Greek and Hebrew use. Not me, I wold love to be a God.
It is definitive, one god in all the universe, there is not one noted ancient language scholar (besides a Mormon, and even most of them wrestle with this), that interprets the word as anything but one God and only one God. It is explicit, I don’t know what the scholars have to do to convince people that do not speak or read the language (Greek and Hebrew) that it is anything but one God.
“Since God is a completely perfect being, then there cannot be a second God, for they would have to differ in some way, and to differ from complete perfection is to be less than perfect and not be God” is one argument (Since God is infinite in His existence, then He cannot have parts (for parts cannot be added to reach infinity). If God’s existence is not just a part of Him (which it is for all things which can have existence or not), then He must have infinite existence. Therefore, there cannot be two infinite beings, for one would have to differ from the other, and to differ from infinite existence is to not exist at all—that is for the engineers who read this post), but the fact is the words are the best argument. Yes, Mormons interpret the bible how it fits their theology, but it does not change the context of the words of the bible.
One other argument, if there were many Gods, then how come there is no biblical Hebrew words describing Goddesses -none, because the duality of man is found only in a created world not a part of the Godhead, which is basically sexless. Surely if there were more than one God, there would be more then one Goddess. But enough rational thought, it could hurt your faith.
There is no God before me, was an affirmation by God. The alpha and omega reference was the same. If you took the original words and studied them you would see there is but one conclusion…one God in all the universe.
Please, look at not just a very small study of the bible (the Mormon study), but look at the thousands upon thousands of theologians, Greek, Hebrew, old Testament scholars and read what they say about just this one subject.
You will be enlightened, but it will also scare you…it will shake your faith, truth often does. Steel sharpens steel as someone with wisdom once said.
Thanks for your response, good luck on your search…or good luck on the comfort of your faith, whichever path you take.
right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 6:00 PM
One more time, I never said Mitt was unqualified to be the Pres because of his religion. You read what you want. I have said many times, as VP or cabinet post great, he has flip flopped to many times to be the leader…no one knows what he really stands for, gun control, abortion, conservative, taxes they have all changed in the past year. That is what makes him unqualified.
What makes me nervous is he allows a false prophet to be his religious leader, you think that is great, I don’t.
Cut out the “harping statements” I respond to you and you whine that I respond. I use examples like Jesus marriage as one example, you know that, it is a straw man to say I am fixated. If I threw 10 things out at you, you would whine that you can’t answer them all. Don’t whine, don’t be a victim.
As far as Jews, never heard the term “Mormon them down” (as in Jew them down, Mormon-town, Hymie-town, KKK hated the Jews like the blacks (Catholics not any better), Jews have crosses burned in their lawns, lived in a Mormon neighborhood, never saw any lawn burning. Open your eyes, the Jews are really persecuted…in other words you aren’t the only religious victim in the U.S.
and how would you know if the Mormon doctrine is wrong. You see, I have hundreds of experts over 2,000 yrs commenting, you have 15, I will go with the numbers. And what have you got against Matthew Henry? Have you read his commentaries?
You don’t read well do you? I said Huck shouldn’t serve, I don’t believe a minister and politician are compatible.
I never said Mitt was a disqualified because he taught, man you don’t read like I said. I said he doesn’t know what he is..a gun toting, gun grabbing, right to life, right to choose, not tax large fees, I am not a Reagan conservative but I am now, kind of guy.
Read the Matthew quote again, and then say that it is wrong. You can’t serve two masters. Why is that such a threat?
Jefferson, wanted money he served the wrong master, Craig and others had a sexual addiction, he served the wrong master. Reid has taken money in land deals, he served the wrong master, Carter is serving tyrants now, he has chosen the wrong master, Baker served the wrong master, the list is endless.
Jesus knew what he was talking about…trust him.
right2bright on December 3, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I didn’t mean to imply you had an odd definition of monotheism. I meant that telling a Mormon he is a polytheist sounds offensive to the person because latter day saints don’t feel like they’re polytheists for the reasons I already listed. It is much like the telling of a protestant (or for that matter a Catholic, Adventist, Mormon, or other) that (s)he worships a Jewish zombie would undoubtedly be offensive to him/her, though technically accurate.
I know you want people to listen to you. I believe you may have useful information. So, my point was intended to encourage you to temper your prose in such a way as to not seem offensive.
As to the other, when you say “there is not one noted ancient language scholar that interprets the word as anything but one God and only one God” you of course mean currently? I ask because I’m sure you know that the reason there was a need for the first council at Nicaea was that the ancient language scholars and christian religious leaders at that time did not agree on the subject of “one god.”
Jens on December 3, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Much better. At least here we have adequate disclaimers at the top of the article. This is also much more in line with what LDS Church actually believes.
Troy Rasmussen on December 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Hey Right2Bright:
What would you say to a Moslem that accused you of being a polytheist? You’d probably say that the three members of your trinity are three manifestations of one essence (or something alone those lines, with words of dubious meaning; maybe Arian, maybe monophysite or monothelete or one of those other stupid distinctions made by people who insist that they understand the mysteries of God’s being).
But then, if a Hindoo [sic] tells you that Krishna and Shiva and Ganesh and the gang are all simply different manifestations of the one true godhead, what would you answer him? Is he a polytheist or a monotheist? Which one are you? Is there any difference between you and him? What if he believes in Ganesh and Jesus?
Stop yer hatin’.
Tzetzes on December 3, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I’ll also note that that link, Troy Rasmussen, was written by a guy who was a Catholic priest, and while studying deification discovered that the LDS church really did have the beliefs closest to the original Christian Fathers…. which eventually led to his conversion.
Vanceone on December 4, 2007 at 4:18 AM
Having an opinion about religion, isn’t hatin’. That’s like a democrat saying “vote for me, stop your hatin’”. The doctrine, get it, the doctrine is what I rail against.
Calling people a hater, or bigot (as some, not you) is an argument ender.
Show me that I am wrong on my assessment and we can talk.
And, BTW, that is what many people do think, and Muslim’s do hate my religion and want my religion (and me) destroyed. I would show them the scripture, as I have shown others, and let them decide. They aren’t being a bigot, they misinformed, it has nothing to do with individual as much as the doctrine they follow. Separate the two and you will stop hatin’.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I am talking about modern scholars. They have the tools that did not exist 1,500 years ago. Which show how correct they were 1,500 years ago. The computers in the past twenty years have not only confirmed 98% (that is an actual percent) but the 2% were mere typos. With the artifacts that show up in the ancient Hebrew and some in Greek. With the difficulty of picking out a predicate in Hebrew or understanding Septuagint Greek, it would have been easy to make an error.
The offense is from a “new religion” coming in a corrupting and established religion. You see, as much as some don’t like it, definitions were staked out 1,000’s of years ago. When someone says poly, that means more then one in existence. Mono is one and only one. One apple is a mono apple, a tree (with many apples) would be a poly apple tree. If you have worlds with a God, then you have more then one God in existence…not that you worship, but that exist. You may be a mono worshiper, but your theology is poly. You believe that their is more then one God in existence. The bible is Mono-theist…please check some great Hebrew texts and then you will believe.
I do not understand your “Jewish Zombie” quote. If you mean this:
John 20:24-29
John 2:22
Then I would say, read the bible, if you don’t believe the words, then you are a non-believer a non-Christian. There are billion on this planet who do not believe the bible, and others distort the bible to make it fit their beliefs.
The translation of the bible is the most accurate ever, to come along and say someone pulls stones out of a hat and be more accurate (and with the hundreds of changes since from the “most accurate) is ludicrous.
We have the technology, we have the interpretation, the problem is…it doesn’t support doctrine some of us want to believe.
Start with http://www.crosssearch.com/ an aplogetics site with many references.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Dear Right2Bright:
Septuagint Greek is not difficult Greek by any stretch of the imagination. I’m fairly comfortable with Greek myself: I did a BA in Ancient Greek and an MPhil in Mediaeval Greek at Oxford and am currently in the middle of my third year living in Greece. Septuagint Greek is probably the easiest Greek in the world. In fact, as a contributor to ideas on scripture, its great value is its clarity, as it shows in such unmistakeable language (with just a few weird blips) how intertestamental Jews understood their own holy books. I’ve read about half of the thing, and one of its personal appeals is that it’s so easy to read and makes one feel so smart.
But I’ve never ever met any theologian (except Eastern Orthodox ones) with good Greek. The reason is that they don’t study Greek for its own sake, but in order to read scripture. Thus very few of them read Homer, Herodotus or Plato with any seriousness, or learn to speak Modern Greek, which in many ways (particularly on the lexical level) is closer to Alexandrian Greek than is Classical Attic. Western theologians from any stripe, but especially Protestants, tend to be all thumbs when it comes to Greek, despite their enthusiasm. What they do have though is a lot of pre-conceived religious ideas, the which in order to demonstrate or validate they wrest the writings in ways unnatural to the language.
In your answer to Jens, you also mention the difficulty of reading Hebrew, but then refer him to “some great Hebrew texts” for an understanding of monotheism, as though that would clarify things. This doens’t follow.
But, as for monotheism, you didn’t answer my question. (You concentrated on my off-hand imperative to stop hatin’, which I withdraw and for which I apologize. Let’s not discuss the rules of discussion.) The question remains: a Mahometan will tell you that that appletree you mentioned represents well your conception of godhood: three different apples or manifestations of God but all part of the same tree. (One Irish saint once did that with the clover.) The Hindoo will agree with you and say those apples include Shiva and Krishna and possibly even Jesus. But the Moslem will say that you and the Hindoo are both really polytheists, and that the bit about a single essence (the trunk of the tree) is mere quibbling. How would you answer?
Tzetzes on December 5, 2007 at 3:58 AM
I see my mistake, I thought your purpose came from feeling charity for potential brothers and sisters, but I am wrong. Instead your purpose seems to arise from offense taken.
Jens on December 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Hope you get this, I wasn’t dodging. Great that you find Greek and Hebrew so easy…some of us have not, particularly ancient Hebrew. Which is why Universities like UCI have endowemnents of million of dollars to further study.
What I meant when I said “great Hebrew texts” is the interpretation of these. There are some excellent resources, via the internet, that did not exist just a few years ago.
And answer for the Big question is:
I would first confirm that they believe all things are possible with God, that he indeed has complete authority in all matters. If they believe he has limited abilities to only what they can know or imagine, then God is nothing more then an extension of their thoughts or dreams…so they would put whatever limitations fits their knowledge or experience (thus making them the creator of God and not the other way around). With that resolved then the quickest and easiest would be for them to read this.
John 1-18
Perhaps a couple of other passages, but that discussion alone would be worthy. You knowing the languages would understand the significance of those passages. To find another meaning you would have to resort to another book (like the Book of Mormon) to mis-interpret.
*
Now, that you find the ancient languages so easy. Maybe you could help me with this.
In the new testament when Christ uses the words “ego eimi”, is that in reference to the words in the old testament, or do you find the predicate misplaced?
right2bright on December 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Dear Right2Bright:
I hope you get this (I just saw your post). First, I know extremely little Hebrew, which was one of my points: I don’t know “the languages”, because I don’t study Greek in order to read scripture. I read Greek to read Sophocles, to read Homer, Plato and…Tzetzes (a brilliant 12th-century scholar at Byzantium) and to partake of a tradition going back from the Mycenaean age till today. Scripture is just bonus (though vitally important, along with Homer, for understanding the literature of the Byzantine Empire). I do languages for the beauty of the language and her literature: Greek, Latin, Gothic, German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon &c., and of course the most beautiful language in the world, Icelandic. I’ve only done one year of Hebrew, am very rusty at it, and was as interested in its connections with Punic, Syriac and Ugaritic (not to mention Babylonian, Assyrian, Arabic and Ethiopic) as I was in its supposedly holy status. (There are holy ideas expressed in Hebrew, but the language itself is just a dialect of Northwest Semitic with some of its curious soundshifts (like /w/ to /j/). In many ways Arabic is truer to proto-Semitic.) But my point is that really knowing the language comes from really loving the language (as we classicists do), not as seeing it simply as a vehicle (as theologians do).
Now, as for the εγώ ειμι (hope that doesn’t come out scrambled), I don’t think there’s any question of a misplaced predicate: the predicate is just “am”! As you’ll know, it’s often (usually?) taken as Jesus’ declaration that he is the Jehovah from Exodus 3.14, who in the LXX tells Moses “εγώ ειμι ο ών” (sorry–I’m at the internet cafe and haven’t got my polytonic keyboard). He says, “I am the one who is” (der Seiende, if that helps). (The tetragram never shows up in the LXX, but is always translated as “Lord”, as in our KJV. I believe, but could well be wrong, that the Hebrew can read “the one who will be”) But I think the reading of “before Abraham was, I am” (which does not use the phrase “ο ών”: does not say “before Abraham was, I am that I am”), as a declaration of, so to speak, Jehovahhood, rests more on the context than the precise wording, and works as well in English as in Greek. In other words, the central thing in Exodus is the ών, not the ειμί. (By the way, ο ών is what you see in the halo around the Pantocrator’s image in the dome of Greek Orthodox churches, an explicit acknowledgement of his being the Lord of the Hebrew Bible.)
Now, as to the important question, I’m afraid I’m not really satisfied with your answer, because I think our hypothetical Mahometan friend wouldn’t be. I know a lot of our Hindoo friends would say for sure that, like Christians, they believe in “all that is seen and all that is unseen”, all that they can imagine and also what they can’t imagine. That God is good and all-pervasive and all-knowing, and that man can only comprehend one part of him, that which at any point in our own development he should deem right to reveal; that he is transcendent. In fact, that sounds very Hindoo. And he might then say that God manifests himself in different forms, different personages or bodies, “just as you Christians believe. He shows himself as Shiva, as Ganesh and, no doubt, as your Jesus. He is indeed greater than one can comprehend. Perhaps in fact that’s why he shows himself in different ways at different times to our limited and changing minds.”
The Hindoo has thus argued, with great simplicity, that his understanding of God is in at least one important way very close to that of your version of Christianity. The Mahometan following the dialogue is certainly convinced. “Yes indeed, my friend. You and the Hindoo agree and are both polytheists. God, as the Jews say, is one. The Jews err in thinking they can understand him. He is there; he is utterly transcendent and beyond our comprehension, illogical even according to our reasoning. But he has nevertheless made himself very clear in the revelations to Mohammed bin-Abdullah (pbuh), and said in a way we cannot misunderstand that he is one. He does not come in the form of a man (and is not the father of man). He does not speak in divine voice while simultaneously coming in the sign of a dove, while simultaneously standing in the flesh of a man. That is polytheism of the same kind the Hindoo proclaims: one essence but multiple forms. But I say to you, that God is one and unchanging. There are not three gods, there is one God. Everything else is polytheism. The only monotheists are the Jews (who have gone astray), the Aristotelians (who know not his names) and we Moslems.”
What would you tell him? I’ve gone on at length, but this isn’t a rhetorical question. …Thanks!
Tzetzes on December 10, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Well, actually there is Margaret Barker, a scholar and Methodist preacher, who seems very capable of reading Greek and Hebrew. She’s written 13 books on the subject that our understanding of the Old Testament is wrong because we assume because the Jews are monotheist today that they have always been monotheist. Her study of the Old Testament shows that they were originally polytheist, a family of gods, in the first temple and then the doctrine was changed during the reformation of the Deuteronomists during the Babylonian exile to reduce the number of gods to one.
A good read, if you can find them. I’d suggest, “The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God”
http://www.margaretbarker.com
Sebastian on December 11, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Thanks! I’ve looked just briefly at the website and it’s very intriguing. Grain of salt and all that, of course, but I’ve bookmarked it and look forward to looking at it in greater detail. (But, then again, I’m not quite what everyone here would call orthodox.)
Tzetzes on December 14, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2